Since the 17th century,
Calvinism has been identified with its five-point reply to the
Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. Calvinists often complain
that this summary of their theology, though accurate in
expressing the Calvinists' disagreement with their Arminian
opponents, presents a truncated view of what Calvinism really is.
Where in the five points do we hear of the covenant or of union
with Christ? To properly understand a theology, we must not only
know what it says to its opponents, but we need to know how it is
to be presented on its own terms.

If a five-point summary is
an awkward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to
Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined
doctrine of election. (It certainly has one.) God's gracious
election of certain individuals to salvation was affirmed in
Article X of the Formula of Concord, the last of the Lutheran
confessions. The darker side of predestination has also been
considered. As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse wrote,
Lutheran theology knows about the God of Predestination: This God
who makes us responsible for demands which we cannot fulfill, who
asks us questions which we cannot answer, who created us for good
and yet leaves us no other choice than to do evil--this is the
Deus absconditus. This is the God of absolute Predestination.
This is the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, who hated Esau even
before he was born, the Potter who fashions pots and before whom
one shrinks-and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless
sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, 'Tua culpa!' Thine is the
guilt!

The reason Lutheranism has
never been presented according to a five-point scheme is not that
it lacks the doctrines that would allow that, but that the
Arminians never issued to the Lutherans a five-point refutation
of their supposed errors. Lutheran pastors and theologians had
enough to keep them busy in teaching their doctrine rightly and
refuting those who directly attacked them. Little would have been
gained by refuting the errors of somebody else's opponents.

Today the story is
different. While presenting its doctrine according to a
five-point system is not the most natural way to present the
Lutheran doctrines of grace, it is almost necessitated by the
fact that American evangelicals have come of age in an
environment where the theological categories have been defined by
others, and most of those others have been Arminians.

Unless our doctrines are
presented in a way such that the contrasts with Arminianism are
easily seen, even an otherwise clear presentation of the Lutheran
doctrines will produce confusion. For one thing, superficial
similarities between the two systems could easily be mistaken for
areas of agreement. In addition, there are doctrines that have a
fit within the whole structure of Lutheranism, but will at first
glance appear disastrous on account of the logical implications
that would result from their adoption into an Arminian system.
Ribbed vaulting and massive gargoyles might crush a building with
glass walls, but it will fit splendidly onto the top of a
cathedral whose stone columns and flying buttresses are designed
to support their weight.

Arminian Principles
Rejected

The best way to compare two
theological positions is to compare their underlying principles.
According to J.I. Packer, the theological position of the
Remonstrants came from two philosophical principles:

first, that divine
sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore
with human responsibility; second, that ability limits
obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully
justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two
deductions: first, that since the Bible regards faith as a free
and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is
exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible
regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the
gospel, ability to believe must be universal.

Lutheranism lines up behind
Packer and finds these principles to be abhorrent. While
Lutheranism never had the occasion to come up against the five
points of Arminianism, it had several opportunities to fight
against the underlying Arminian principles.

At first glance,
Lutheranism might appear to be an amalgamation of Calvinism and
Arminianism because, with regard to the five points, it seems to
agree with Calvinism on some points and Arminianism on others. We
must be careful, however, to look at the underlying principles
that motivated the positions. When we do this, we will find that
Lutheranism is not in fundamental agreement with the Remonstrants
on any of the five points. To demonstrate this, I have put the
positions side-by-side (see Theological Chart: Lutheranism vs.
Arminianism, in this issue).

The two positions of
Lutheranism and Arminianism are clearly different at each point,
even where there are some similarities. The guiding motif in
Arminianism is the free will of man, but in Lutheranism this is
rejected. God is the main actor in Lutheranism. While the diagram
above ought to be sufficient to show that Lutheranism and
Arminianism are incompatible, there are two points which it will
be especially profitable to look into more deeply: apostasy and
unconditional election.

The Problem of Apostasy

Both the Arminians and the
Lutherans believe that a true Christian can fall from the faith.
When two groups of Christians hold to the same doctrine, we
usually are inclined to guess that they hold their position for
the same reasons, that a common principle leads them to a common
conclusion. In the case of apostasy, both the Arminians and the
Lutherans would cite some of the same biblical passages in
support of their position (e.g. Hebrews 6:4ff, 2 Peter 2:1), but
the Lutheran would reject the philosophical baggage concerning
the glories of free will, which would be the stronger element in
the Arminian case for apostasy.

For the Arminian, the
ability to fall away from grace is merely the flip side of the
individual's ability to decide for Christ. If we can decide to
accept him, it stands to reason that we must also have the power
to reject him.

For the Lutheran, the
ability to fall from grace is not the flip side of the ability to
decide for Christ, for we do not hold that man has that ability.
The use of the term "ability" is even somewhat
misleading in this context. We might as well speak of the ability
of an unconscious man to drown in water. The ability to drown is
not a special branch of swimming, and neither is apostasy a
special branch of spiritual ability.

The Unconditional Election
of Grace

Around the turn of the
century, the matter of predestination became the subject of
furious debate within the American Lutheran church. If you have
heard that predestination is not a Lutheran issue, you have heard
wrong. The controversy erupted over the question of whether
election was a cause of faith, or faith a cause of election.
Hundreds of articles on the nature of election appeared in the
theological journals of the Lutheran church bodies involved in
the dispute. People were even barred from communion over it. In
short, the debate was over the doctrine that the Calvinists refer
to as unconditional election.

The Missouri-Synod
theologians claimed that the cause of God's election was his
graciousness toward individuals, not any faith, goodness, or
receptiveness-not even lack of resistance-that he saw in them.
The theologians of the other Lutheran church bodies said that
this view of election was in conflict with the doctrine of
justification by faith alone. The Missouri-Synod theologians
claimed that the opposite was true.

Election and justification
by faith alone together guarantee that salvation is all of grace.
Both tell us that salvation does not come to us on the basis of
merit. Just as receiving salvation by means of faith guarantees
that we do not contribute to salvation, as faith is a gift from
God and merely receptive, so also, knowing that God predestined
us to salvation before we had done anything good or evil
guarantees the same thing-unless we say that God chose us because
he saw that we would come to faith.

Some of the theologians who
claimed that election took place in view of foreseen faith wanted
to make election into a form of justification that took place in
eternity. Just as God reckoned a person righteous in time when a
person trusted him, these theologians said that God would make
this declaration in eternity when he looked into the future and
saw this faith. The "Missourian" theologians said that
they did not so much object to the content of this view as much
as the language. Perhaps this was the case, they concluded, but
this was not what the Scriptures meant when they talked about
election.

What was more insidious was
that some theologians saw faith to be a human contribution to
salvation. It was not a work of God the Holy Spirit who brought a
person to faith through the message of the Gospel, but a work of
man--man's small contribution to his salvation. This resembled
the Arminian argument that God had lowered the cost of salvation
to bargain-basement prices; instead of keeping the law, now God
just required faith. This type of faith was no faith at all. It
was a hindrance to faith!

This matter had come up in
the Lutheran church more than once before. Philip Melanchthon,
Luther's co-reformer and one of the authors of the Lutheran
confessions, had in his later career said that there were three
causes of election, man's non-resistance to grace being one.
Later theologians sometimes fell into speaking of conversion
being the result of "new powers imparted by grace," or
"right conduct over against grace." This always turned
out to be the grossest form of moralism. The "faith"
that is required bears an uncanny resemblance to works. In each
case the sinner is thrown back onto himself for deliverance.

A person's stand on
unconditional election is indicative of his true adherence to
salvation by grace alone through faith alone. If non-resistance
or right conduct become the grounds of election, you can bet that
the "faith alone" which is being talked about is not
faith at all, but a work of man. Credit may be given to God after
the fact for giving us this power, but who could see in this type
of faith the empty hand of which the reformers spoke? A new power
from God may sound like a gracious gift, but beware! If the new
power is the ability to save oneself by following the right
principles, it is best left unwrapped. The Missouri-Synod
theologians were very careful to ensure that gifts remained gifts
and good news remained good news. If we wish to do the same, we
had better guard our doctrine of unconditional election.

Concluding Advice

For those who have grown up
under the prevailing teaching in American churches (I mean
Arminianism), Reformation theology often comes across as unusual.
Even when it does not, it is often passed off as a peripheral
issue. "I don't care how I was saved, I just care that I was
saved," is a common response from those who assume that they
can know that they were saved when they don't know how. This is
no side issue, however. Wrong principles on this issue will
always lead to disaster, in this life if by grace not in the
next.

If you want to discover
just how pervasive Arminian principles are, just check to see how
many clear biblical passages you have been systematically taught
to misinterpret. How many times has the verse "Behold I
stand at the door and knock..." (Rev. 3:20) been taken to be
Christ standing at the door of our hearts asking us if we will
let him save us, when it is Christ standing at the door to the
church in Laodicea? How often have we heard that "God has
voted for us, Satan has voted against us, and we cast the
deciding vote" when Romans 8:31 teaches that if God is for
us who can be against us? We are told to make a decision for
Christ, but we say that we do not want to be bothered with
hearing about what he has decided about us.

If the introduction to
Reformation theology is causing some grief, do not be surprised.
That is normal. To find out that God has no interest in allowing
our destiny to remain in our hands is a scary thought when we
trust ourselves more than God. It might cause sleepless nights.
It might inspire heated arguments. We might wish to avoid these
for the sake of love-but love of what? Certainly not God. God is
the primary one to whom we relate, and he will not have one of
his creatures loved above himself. To avoid dealing with central
questions concerning salvation out of love is not spiritual, it
is carnal. Any time spent on these issues will be worthily spent.

Read about these things. Do
not assume that since these arguments have been going on for
centuries, there must be no solution. You might be surprised to
find that at least at the level of basic principles, the Bible is
quite clear. The fact that the debate has run on for centuries
does not mean that equally clear minded Christians could not come
to agreement, but that there are spiritual factors that prevent
Reformation principles from being accepted. The old Adamic nature
loves itself above God and wants to be captain of its own
destiny. This, and not God's lack of clarity on vital issues, is
why the conflict continues. If you wish to become convinced of
this, take and read.

For Further Reading:

Pieper, F. Conversion and
Election: A Plea for a United Lutheranism in America. This book
was written by Lutheranism's greatest American dogmatician. This
book gives probably the best overview available of the Lutheran
position on election.

Tappert, Theodore G., ed.
Lutheran Confessional Theology in America 1840-1880. Several of
the chapters are articles written by theologians during
Lutheranism's predestinarian controversy. The articles by C.F.W.
Walter, the founder of the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod are
especially good.

Sasse, Hermann. Here We
Stand: The Nature and Character of Lutheranism. This book, among
other things, puts the doctrine of predestination into its
Lutheran context. Read it to discover what Luther had to say
about God hidden and revealed.

Watson, Phillip. Let God Be
God! Another work which gives an overview of Lutheran theology.
This one, however, deals more specifically with Luther than the
Lutheran church.

Rick Ritchie, a
contributing author to Christ the Lord: The Reformation and
Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), is a graduate of
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton,
Massachusetts.